Author Topic: Duncan v Handmaker - suit isn't permissable purpose - US 6th circuit appeals  (Read 4955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Admin

  • Guest
Duncan sued Handmaker's client over a dispute over their well that was found to be infested with fecal coliform. During the litigation of that case, Handmaker pulled the Duncan's credit report to use the information during litigation. Duncan figured it out due to deposition questions and Handmaker admitted to it.

Handmaker originally got a MSJ but the appeals court overturns it here. Thus, there's caselaw now showing that opposing parties can't pull your credit reports for litigation purposes as there's not permissable purpose under the law for litigation.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2007 05:02:07 PM by Admin0248 »

Mischievous Smurfy

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5595
This isn't the only case law on the issue.  At the moment I am having to review all my files.  I had referenced them by statute sections which turns out to still be to broad to quickly reference the cases.  I am having to add notes to each record (500+). 

Anyway, when I run accross the case again I will post it here.

I do remember that it involved a law suit against a dentist (for malpractice as I recall) and Plaintiff attorney pulled credit reports on Dentist and his two daughters "to make sure he was not passing his assets to them".

Plaintiff (errr --- defendant in FCRA suit) was found in violation of FCRA.
Ease of Use - Smurfy's Quick Reference


why are we requesting validation instead of disputing???  Why Why Why

Mischievous Smurfy

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5595
Bakker -v- McKinnon 97-3267 8th circuit August 21, 1998

On appeal from DC Western District of Arkansas

District court held "“grossly crossed the line in respect to what is proper in conducting litigation.” The district court awarded each appellee actual damages in the amount of $500 and punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Id. at 16-17. Subsequently, the district court awarded appellees attorney’s fees and costs.

8th circuit affirmed.


Ease of Use - Smurfy's Quick Reference


why are we requesting validation instead of disputing???  Why Why Why

wayhigh

  • Guest
Thanks.

I actually have that one and quite a few more that I need to put up. The archive is only about 1/3 complete at this point. Hopefully I will get the rest up soon.

WH

cprems

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2185
Any updates for cases on this issue?
ALL my postings have NO legal value.

 I AM the "village idiot" please hold my posts to this standard.

 If you need legal Counsel - contact an Attorney.

kevinmanheim

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9190
Any updates for cases on this issue?
The issue you will run up against is that those cases do not involve an OC.

In the cases listed, there was never a PP to pull.

The OC is going to argue that a PP exists because you have a business relationship with them - money owed on an account.

cprems

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2185
I agree. But these cases specifically invoke no permission during litigation.

The OC can argue that and I would stipulate it. However, during litigation there is no permissible
reason to review a credit report.

The FTC has agreed and now the Appeals Courts are agreeing.

It will make for an interesting argument in Court!


The issue you will run up against is that those cases do not involve an OC.

In the cases listed, there was never a PP to pull.

The OC is going to argue that a PP exists because you have a business relationship with them - money owed on an account.
ALL my postings have NO legal value.

 I AM the "village idiot" please hold my posts to this standard.

 If you need legal Counsel - contact an Attorney.